Hello, Fedora has an approved security policy since September 2018 :
If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is currently open
against a package, or a security issue of lower severity has been
open for at least 6 months, four weeks before the branch point a
procedure similar to long-standing FTBFS will be triggered
immediately, with 8 weeks of weekly notifications to maintainers and
subsequent orphaning and then subsequent removal from distribution.
This applies to all packages, not just leaf.
I have decided to have a look into this, since this has been approved more than
a year ago and nothing ever happened since. Fedora has a very big pile of open
CVE bugzillas .
There are several things I'd like us to consider based on the experience from
the FTBFS policy adjustments  before I go implement stuff:
A. It's easier to **orphan** packages soon, retire later -- this allows the
dependent package owners to notice the breakage and possibly adopt the packages
themselves if needed while gives very little room for "cheating".
B. Getting this done on a certain point in the release schedule is complicated
and requires a lot of planning and focus -- if we miss the window, nothing can
change until the next release. We have missed the window 3 times already.
C. Also because of the fixed date, the CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issues
have no response time, if you get a new one at a certain point, the package is
immediately treated as problematic, while getting it 1 day later, there is a 6
month period where no action is required.
I'd like to adjust the policy before I go implement some tooling around this.
This is vague proposal of what I think would work easier for both "the
executioner" and the affected maintainers:
1. We automatically send reminders to NEW security bugzillas (as with FTBFS)
2. BZs that remain in NEW state for X reminders: pkg is orphaned
3. BZs that remain not CLOSED for Y months: pkg is retired (with notifications)
Point 2 makes it so that only a couple remaining packages actually need to
survive unfixed to point 3. Hence, point 3 can happen at a certain point in the
schedule with less severe impact of points B and C -- and if we miss the window,
we still have point 1 happening.
The bugzilla reminders are sent every third calendar week (every week is too
Here is an initial (albeit randomly generated) proposal of X and Y:
severity CRITICAL/HIGH MEDIUM LOW
X 2 4 6
Y 2 4 6
Note that X=1 effectively means anything from 1 second to 3 weeks, X=2 means
anything from 3 weeks (+1 second) to 6 weeks. Hence, we cannot orphan packages
after just 1 reminder.
I've made it so that X always equals to Y and every lower level is +2, to make
it easier to document, understand and remember, however this is not required.
For this example a critical/high CVE would get a reminder every third calendar
week. After two reminders (that is after 3-6 weeks), if still in NEW state,
package is orphaned. The maintainer (and others) still have extra 6 weeks to
If the bug is ASSIGNED, MODIFIED, etc., the package may be retired after 2
months, but that only happens regularly at a certain point in the schedule.
Similarly, a package with a medium CVE NEW bugzilla would be orphaned after 4
reminders (after 9-12 weeks), retired at a point if still not CLOSED after 4 months.
With low severity, that is 6 reminders (after 15-18 weeks), retired at a point
if still not CLOSED after 6 months (similarly to the current policy).
Please share your feedback, before I proceed with this to FESCo.
If somebody would be interested in maintaining this procedure, I'd be happy to
hand over that responsibility to anybody who is willing to help.
The idea is to start with semi-automation and have something -- currently we had
hoped for fully automated and we have nothing.